20. Integrity today is judged by that of tomorrow
Because integrity is dynamic rather than static, what is viewed as integrity today may not be seen in the same light tomorrow. Judgments can be made retrospectively: what SPs do today is judged according to tomorrow’s adjusted views. SPs are expected to anticipate changes. At the same time a changing integrity cannot automatically be applied retrospectively. It is a matter of knowing what an SP could reasonably have known and foreseen.
We have seen that present and future integrity is in part determined by past integrity. What people have done and who they have been affects what they do and who they are now and in the future. SPs bring their past with them, and today’s integrity is not only affected by the future as well as the past. It is dynamic, rather than static, in the sense that what is currently considered to be integrity may not be seen in this way in the future. Changes may be applied in retrospect: what SPs do today is judged by tomorrow’s adjusted view of morality. For today’s integrity it is therefore important to take the future into account.
Values and norms change. In many countries in the past it was normal to appoint family and friends to public office, whereas now many codes of conduct view this as an undesirable conflict of interest. Accepting expensive gifts and being lavishly treated by companies was quite normal in the past, whereas currently this is seen as problematic and immoral, a reason for withdrawing trust in an SP. A president was criticized when it was discovered that he had taken part in an expensive dinner and stayed in a luxury hotel at a company’s expense. Not all standards become stricter over time, though. Some become more moderate and flexible. In the past, SPs were expected to stand down if they were discovered to be homosexual, whereas this is no longer an issue in many countries and for many political parties.
Values and norms for SPs change due to changing organizational principles (from appointing SPs on the basis of co-option to free elections and open application procedures), social developments (such as divorce becoming more common and no longer being seen as morally problematic, or not to the extent that it was in the past), and because negative consequences of practices become visible (for instance expensive gifts from associates damaging clarity of function in markets). SPs, however, are not only expected to adapt to changes in morality, but also to be proactive about this. Knowing that morality changes, they cannot act as if integrity is static. This proactivity is an indication of integrity.
Proactivity shows willingness to go beyond requirements and expectations, taking ownership of one’s integrity. However, this is not a matter of choice. Even if we do not strictly need to surpass expectations, we are still expected to do so. SPs are expected to be above the Zeitgeist, to look to the longer term, to rise above current expectations, and to act in a way that is tenable in the future. This is what is expected and SPs will be held liable if they fail, but it is also something many SPs like to boast about when they want to appear visionary, standing up for future generations, and as a leader for a new future. However, that also implies being able to place contemporary morals in a broader time horizon.
Anyone with an eye for integrity therefore also has an eye for tomorrow’s integrity. The trick is then to look at today’s decisions and behavior through the moral glasses of tomorrow, however difficult that may be, and to take that into account in today’s actions. One way to achieve this is to follow developments in morality in other sectors and countries. If the accountancy sector sets standards forbidding an accountant from owning shares in his office’s client companies, that signals a possible broader development leading to SPs not being able to own shares in companies from the region where they work. If restrictions are on what SPs can do after resigning their positions are on the up in other countries (for instance preventing them from working for companies with which they have had a dependency relationship as SPs for half a year after leaving), this can signal a development that will affect SPs domestically. Similarly developments for others within the same sector can point to shifts in standards throughout the sector. If a mayor is rapped over the knuckles by his council for having lots of jobs on the side, that might be a reason for other mayors to consider whether the number of sidelines they are involved in is defensible. You might also look at the extent to which a norm has changed in the past, applying this to future changes. In recent years the number of additional jobs a person holds has come to be seen less as a sign of social